ie8 fix

The really inconvenient truth: real price of our energy

By | October 17, 2009, 10:56am PDT

Summary: I’ve blogged before about the need for a new energy calculus. Not just market and whosesale costs to the user of the energy. Economics and business have a notoriously short-sighted, narrow-minded set of considerations. Haven’t we just re-learned that ancient lesson from the hedge funder corruption and the phoney mortgage miasma? [...]

I’ve blogged before about the need for a new energy calculus. Not just market and whosesale costs to the user of the energy. Economics and business have a notoriously short-sighted, narrow-minded set of considerations. Haven’t we just re-learned that ancient lesson from the hedge funder corruption and the phoney mortgage miasma? Nothing human is self-regulating, whether four year olds or CEOs.

We humans could start calculating the real, total costs of our endeavors to the planet and all of us, living and expected. For energy sources it’s not just fossil fuels. What’s the long-term cost of dealing with nuclear waste? Of making solar panels? The destruction of wildlife and possible weather change wrought by big wind farms. We could stop pretending that nature gives us a free lunch on any source of energy. Even a donkey turning a waterwheel has an environmental cost. The food, the resulting manure, the dust raised by the donkey’s hooves, etc. Can we really pretend that today’s high rates of cancer, infertility, diabetes and asthma–to pick a few–really have nothing to do with the chemicals in our lives, our water, our food?

Way back in the 19th Century we learned the cost of coal included killer smog in London and black lung inside the miners’ chests. Yet we continue to lie to ourselves about energy. We now even see big money trying to market the idea there is “clean coal.” Congress likes that because some major political donors love it. Of course, what is meant is capturing the CO2 and hiding it somewhere or recycling it. Nobody really can believe that mining, moving and burning coal is “clean.” And we need not go into detail on the coal ash residue, do we?

Poll

The earth's environment

We’ve learned much about the actual effects of our resource extraction and use in the past decades. Now we need to stop pretending it’s 1950. When I was a kid in rural Midwest we burned our household trash, including plastics, spray cans and used paint materials. We were spreading heavy metals and nasty organic chemicals like mad. We sprayed our milk cows with DDT, then milked them. I drank a lot of that stuff. No wonder I’m such a pathetic human being today, huh? The point is: we know better now. Buried or burned is not gone, only forgotten. There’s an Oklahoma town suffering from zinc smelting that happened decades ago. A Kansas lead mining town may just be too toxic to live in. A federal buyout there is backed by some of the country’s most conservative U.S. Senators.
Times Beach, Missouri, was killed by dioxin in oil used to control dust. It died in the 1980s.
We still do heedless things today and the “market system” pretends it has no economic meaning. Let’s try growing up. This is our planet and nobody else will clean it up for us.
Here’s just the latest in the endless series of environmental crimes against the planet perpetrated by big energy companies. This one is called “dump it on the poor.” Highly nuclear France seems to be careless with some of their spent nuclear fuel. Surprised? Send it to Russia where nobody imagines there are enforced environmental controls, right?
And it now looks like the American EPA is going to start looking at West Virginia coal mining as more than a source of profit and jobs. The coal companies and their Senate pals will hate that.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Harry Fuller

http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?page_id=2

Biography

Harry Fuller

Harry Fuller is a media veteran, having spent decades in TV news in the San Francisco Bay Area. As GeneralManager of KPIX-TV (CBS) he founded one of the nation's first TV station websites in early 1995. He was News Direcor at TechTV when it was founded in 1998. In 2001 he moved to London to become Executive Producer for CNBC Europe. Four years later he returned to San Francisco as Executive Editor for CNET's news.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
80
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Nice!
ITLeader 20th Oct 2009
That's pretty funny stuff. You know all attempts to predict the day will fail right?

However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. (NLT, Matthew 24:36)
0 Votes
+ -
A different take
Richard Flude Updated - 17th Oct 2009
"Economics and business have a notoriously short-sighted, narrow-
minded set of considerations. Haven?t we just re-learned that ancient
lesson from the hedge funder corruption and the phoney mortgage
miasma?"

What lesson did you learn? Did these markets fail or did government
intervention in market operations corrupted them? Why are tax payers
saddled with massive debts if these markets were allowed to fail?

Governments were all over these failures (legislation supporting loans
to disadvantage borrower, licenses for financial operators restricting
competition but failed claimed oversight, lax monetary policy,
subsidiaries to failing corporations, etc).

Free-er markets have lifted more people out of poverty than any
government. Literary billions of people in the last decade. The
markets productive capacity has been underpinned by inexpensive
energy.

Coal pollutants in 19th century London were a problem, but have you
visited lately? A cleaner environment for many more people with a
standard of living and health unimaginable to the cities earlier
inhabitants.

A similar transformation is occurring throughout the developing
world. For those of us witnessing this transformation the progress is
truly amazing. I'd suggest Harry go there sometime but he probably
couldn't justify the emissions.

The greatest crime against humanity will be if Harry and friends get
their way and restrict development. Their complaints are nothing new
and have been made throughout human history. Fortunately mankind
has ignored these prophecies of doom and we in the developed world
enjoy a quality of life unimaginable even a few decades earlier.

Our lifestyle is such that we can indulge the Harrys of the world. But
make no mistake, follow their teachings and billions of people will
suffer.

Mistakes will continue to be made. Unscrupulous businessmen, often
with government support/corruption, will exist. Harry lists a half
dozen cases in his blog. I excuse none of them. However billions of
other stories remain untold by these few. This is the inconvenient
truth you search.
Coal pollutants in 19th century London were a problem, but have
you
visited lately? A cleaner environment for many more people with a
standard of living and health unimaginable to the cities earlier
inhabitants.


I think you miss Harry's point.

London is cleaner because the people of London forced the
government to interfere with the free market that was dumping its
pollution into the London Air.

The rivers of Pittsburgh, Detroit and Chicago (including the notorious
burning ones - and there were more than one) were cleaned up due to
government regulations. Until then the free-market was using the
rivers as a free dumping ground.

The lakes of Ontario and Quebec are being brought back from the
brink of being dead zones due to acid rain because the government of
Canada pressured the US government to regulate the free market
polluters who were using the air as a free dumping ground.

As with most things, the best course of action lies with a balanced
approach. A total government solution does not often work, but then
neither does a totally unregulated market. People/companies who
make things need to pay to dump the waste products (and pay an
accurate price - not a "bury and forget it" dumping solution. That is
all Harry is saying.

In Germany, the law was changed so that retailers had to take back
the packing materials that products came in (and the retailers in turn
could send the packaging back to the wholesales, and on up the
chain.) German shoppers would purchase something, cut all the
plastic packaging and cardboard inserts off and hand it back to the
shop. In very short order products were packaged with the minimal
amount of packaging needed, and the dumps were saved from tonnes
and tonnes of waste. Industry was not told how to package, what kind
of packaging, etc. Just that they had to pay to dispose of it.... and
then they were allowed to figure it for themselves.

0 Votes
+ -
Is that Germany had much more products being
damaged in transit, many more products that didn't
work and had to be sent back to the manufacturers,
etc.

You should not make the people who are MAKING THE
PRODUCT pay for the recycling of packaging.... you
should make the PEOPLE WHO BUY THE PRODUCT do
that.
0 Votes
+ -
Green Dot program
snberk341 18th Oct 2009
Actually, what has happened is that Germany has enacted the "Green
Dot" program where by firms pay a licensing fee to print the Green
Dot logo on their packaging. License fees are calculated by weight,
material, etc of the packaging, and the fees collected are used to pick
up the packaging waste from households (households have a special
yellow bin for Green Dot waste). Since there is a cost to the
manufacturer if they use excess packaging, they keep the packaging
to a minimum to protect the goods. There is also a cost to the
manufacturer to return goods (as well as negative publicity).

By putting true cost on the goods (instead of one where the
state subsidizes the cost of a good by making taxpayers cover cost of
waste disposal) companies find the most efficient way to package the
goods.

Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to pay to throw away waste that the
companies add to the goods simply to make it look "bigger" or to take
up more shelf space?

0 Votes
+ -
Not really...
HooNoze 18th Oct 2009
I just looked this up on wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be any indication of increased damages. Producers simply pay a license fee based on the amount of packaging they use for their products. This provides and incentive for producers not to be wasteful and to use packaging wisely, thereby avoiding excessive warranty claims. Waste from participating companies is then picked up separately. Its called Duales System Deutschland. (Dual System Germany)

Producers control both the type and amount of packaging used. For this reason it is more fair that the producers pay for disposal, rather than the consumer. If the consumer has to pay, it is going to be through taxation, and they will be paying for something that they have no direct control over.
0 Votes
+ -
People that buy do pay.
bjbrock 18th Oct 2009
All costs are eventually passed to the consumer. This is how producers stay in business.
0 Votes
+ -
Pay - as a consumer or a taxpayer
snberk341 19th Oct 2009
Costs are passed on to the consumer, except for those
that are passed on to the taxpayers. A company that is
dumping its waste into the river, untreated, has a cost
advantage compared to a company that treats its
waste.

However, the costs of the untreated waste are passed
on to the taxpayers in the form of government cleanup
(Love Canal, and other other EPA superfund sites),
medical expenses (especially in countries with
government medical insurance schemes) or much more
expensive water treatment plants to make the drinking
water potable.

Companies/industries that don't pay to deal with their
own waste are being subsidized.

How do you feel about your taxes being used to give
these companies bigger profits and bonuses to their
CEOs?
0 Votes
+ -
Proof, please.
msalzberg 18th Oct 2009
Give us some links showing "that Germany had much more products
being damaged in transit."
0 Votes
+ -
I've not called for totally free markets, these are a theoretical
constructs that don't exist in the real world. The lessons Harry
presents from the recent market failures ignore realities: government
failure was a significant contributor to the problem. Similarly you
ignore government contributions to the issues you outlined.

"People/companies who make things need to pay to dump the waste
products (and pay an accurate price - not a "bury and forget it"
dumping solution. That is all Harry is saying."

I disagree that's all Harry is saying, but OK what's this "accurate price"?
How much do electricity prices have to increase? What impact will this
increase have on individuals, particularly those in developing
countries?

Restricting inexpensive energy will have a dramatic impact on the
quality of life for billions. Carbon dioxide is their latest excuse to deny
others what they hypercritically enjoy themselves.
The nuclear fuel is then reprocessed in sellafield, england, and some radioactive material dumped in the Irish sea, which is a source of much anger in the communities around the Irish sea.
0 Votes
+ -
Save it
Tim Patterson 17th Oct 2009
Nobody is opposed to common sense environmental protections.

However, you envirowackos will never be happy until we are all living in grass huts and eating tree bark.

"environmental crimes against the planet"?
Give me a feakin' break!
0 Votes
+ -
"environmental crimes against the planet"
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 17th Oct 2009
Harry, you just outdid yourself in sillyness. Branding behaviour that YOU think is wrong as 'criminal' is foolish. Who made you judge?

And by the way. When are you going to get a real job, instead of polluting ZDNet with your political agenda?

And I say it again, you are a coward because you never dare to discuss matters with people who post here. It's very obvious - you're always silent when someone debunks your alarmist wet eco-farts.
0 Votes
+ -
Got to agree with you
Lerianis10 18th Oct 2009
The fact is that is what I believe those
whackos want, for us to be living in grass
huts, for 99% of the people on the planet to
die, etc.

They basically want us to go back to 300 B.C.
or further when it comes down to it, because of
their 'gaia complex' where they think that the
planet is more important than the people living
on said planet.

I am all for having clean energy and other
things.... HOWEVER, I am not going to give up
ONE THING in order to have that.
In fact, nuclear power is the answer to our
problems..... if the enviroloonies would get
out of the way of that, we could shut down
almost all of our coal power plants!
You've just made a total strawman argument.
The Gaia theory (from the award-winning scientist James Lovelock) is a scientific theory showing that the earth can be considered as a super-organism (ie the sum of all biomass on earth), which only has around 100 million years of life left. (the sun will become too hot for life to be sustained after that save a few extremophobes).

As it is heading toward the end of it's 'life', it is weak, just as a human being become weak towards the end of life.
Now we are making huge changes it is not able to cope with.
it is inevitable now that this will have major consequences for the human race in the near future.

Lerianis10, do whatever you think is right. Enjoy life. It is now past the point where we can prevent the major changes that are coming.
0 Votes
+ -
"It is now past the point where we can prevent the major changes"
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
Wow - someone's depressed here!
0 Votes
+ -
"depressed"??? No not at all
stevey_d 18th Oct 2009
If you read the Gaia books by the award winning (actually many awards) scientist James Lovelock, who was the first scientist to make a climate model, & this is his conclusion, not mine.

If you read the books, you'll find his evidence and arguments are impossible to deny.


He concludes that a large proportion of mankind will die as a result of the climate flipping into another state. 25000 ARE dying every day right now, this is FACT. As more and more crops fail, as they are doing now, this number will go up.

He also concludes that all life will be impossible on earth in 100 million years (apart from extremophiles).
You'll find this is a view backed up by many scientists.

Therefore human survival will become even more tied to our technology.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, that clears it up.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
You do need some anti-depressants.

Cheer up man.
0 Votes
+ -
what is your problem?
stevey_d 18th Oct 2009
It is possible to predict bad things without being depressed.

I predict that eventually me, my wife, and my kids will die one day. Does that make me sad?
No, why should it? We're going to suck the marrow of life before that happens, and we do.

That doesn't mean we have to hide ourselves from truth, as you do.
0 Votes
+ -
Chill out I said.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
Again you sound depressed. We simply have different interpretation of weather. You call it the end of the world. I call it normal climate change that we don't need to be worried about.

So that's all. Now chill out.
I am chilled, I am not depressed.
You consistently are trying to label me as both of these since I am beating your argument.

This is a very cheap, shoddy technique in rhetoric.
And fundamentally, if you need to hide yourself from the truth to feel good, this shows you have a very weak personality, and wouldn't have had the character to stand up in difficult times like war and so on.
0 Votes
+ -
You sound hysterical. So my point is valid.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
nt.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, they're very possible to deny
John Zern 18th Oct 2009
What awards did he win? Which scienctist back him up or agree with him?

Crops are failing not because they're impossible to grow, they're dying due to natual changes in environment, a cycle.

How do you explain desrts that where once lush forests, and forests that were once deserts?

Plants growing again on Mt St Helens, or the vegitaion on islands across the Pacific?

It's not that crops are failing, its that they can't grow them fast enough to feed a growing population in areas of the world.

the Gaia books, like many things, can be taken with a grain of salt.

We still have salt, right?
0 Votes
+ -
Do you have any children?
bjbrock 18th Oct 2009
If you do you can expect them to pay dearly for your attitude. But you'll be dead and gone while they are paying, so what the hey.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
In fact, I am way more environmentally friendly than you, because of that fact. Therefore, I turn the tables around. YOU POLLUTER!

happy

Using your reasoning, me not having children (by choice) gives me the right to pollute massively to the third degree and STILL be WAY more environmentally friendly than you. Because, it was your SELFISH choice to have POLLUTING children, who will then also likely get POLLUTING children etc. So YOU are responsible for untold levels of current AND FUTURE pollution. Wow man! That's baaad.

See what nonsense it is?

Cheer up, and fire up that SUV man. I'm gonna do that and be happy about it all the way. And if you want to help the environment, you do what you have to do - yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
population isn't a factor
stevey_d 18th Oct 2009
People from Nigeria produce a thousandth of the CO2 that a person from USA or western europe produce.

Population numbers are not the main factor, it's lifestyle.
0 Votes
+ -
Of course population is a factor.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
When you have 1000 'polluting' chinese citizens (nice lead factories btw, dye for your shirt), or 1000 'polluting' US citizens, then adding the 1001th (your baby), YOU are responsible for creating a polluter! Just using your reasoning.

happy

(chill out man)
0 Votes
+ -
Communist agenda..... Oboma = Stalin
Christian_<>< 18th Oct 2009
Good grief, we have the communist
population gods online. I guess they
will be so gracious to tell us who can
be born and who will be aborted...

Very nice, sounds like you are an
Obamanaut brainwashed by the almighty
himself.

I guess Al Gore and his 25,000 square feet
homes 1 of about 5 that is ok since he
is a social elite...

Nothing like hypocrites running a muck
telling the peasants who can breath
and who can die...
0 Votes
+ -
@Christian
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
No worries. I was being cynical and applying Stevey's "logic". Of course I'm all against those enviro-whackos who think that humans cause climate problems. My take? More population = good. Enough space left.
0 Votes
+ -
My thoughts on CO2
CobraA1 17th Oct 2009
"Of course, what is meant is capturing the CO2 and hiding it somewhere or recycling it."

As long as we move towards truly clean industries in the long run, it does not hurt to store it in the short term.

When we get CO2 production down to levels where plants can absorb enough to keep up, we can start releasing the reserves slowly enough not to cause an impact.

Sometimes, yes, it's good to implement short term solutions as a form of damage control while we work on the more difficult long term solutions. If we can store CO2 now, then I'm all for it.

CO2 is not a horrible, bad chemical. In fact, it's vital to plant survival, which in turn is vital to the survival of all life. Under normal circumstances, it's a part of a natural cycle that has been happening ever since life began!

If we need to get it under control, fine. But please don't demonize it.

And please don't demonize industries, either. It's not as if going environmentally friendly is as easy as flipping a switch. Environmentally friendly technology is notorious for being hard to do on a mass scale. It's going to take time to get there.

In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to clean up existing technology while we wait for the roll out of new technologies. We can and should clean up what we have right now. It's far easier, far less costly, and we can reap the benefits today. So it makes sense to clean up what we have now, and continue to work on the long term solutions.

Would you rather we keep the dirty coal plants dirty while we work on rolling out the new, clean stuff??
0 Votes
+ -
The fact is that ALL the CO2 we are putting out
today was IN THE ATMOSPHERE AT ONE TIME, until
plants trapped that stuff.

It's time to realize that putting it back into
the atmosphere HAS NO EFFECT.

I am also for cleaning up what we have right
now and making 'cleaner' technologies....
however, I am NOT for forcing people to go to
these technologies before they are economically
feasible by making everything else as expensive
as they are!
0 Votes
+ -
nonsense
stevey_d 18th Oct 2009
Sure the CO2 was in the atmosphere, but humans' weren't living on the planet at the time, and the sun's output was lower in KW/m^2.

Earth in early history had much higher seas, and a much higher temperature, and CO2 content in the atmosphere.

This was a great living environment for the shellfish-type organisations living on the earth at the time, fixing carbon into what is now limestone.

It probably couldn't happen again as solar output is now higher.

When we snarf up the environment, it will be permanent unless humans can engineer a way of fixing it.
0 Votes
+ -
Yawn again Steve.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
Chill out. If the climate gets warmer, it's actually gonna get nicer here in Canada where I live.
People will be going from the equatorial areas of the globe will go to further reaches like Canada in order to survive.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
We'll close the borders and shoot everyone that tries to get in. happy

Chill out man. You sound hysterical.
0 Votes
+ -
As Canadian, let me say...
snberk341 19th Oct 2009
.... every country has its share of, um, err... opinionated
citizens who don't necessarily reflect overall character
and thinking of a country.
you are totally off the scale dude.

So if the US turns up one morning, deciding to move to canada, because life is no longer possible in the continuous USA, you'll "shoot them all". Good luck, I'd give about 5 seconds before they are in your house.

You're definitely "hysterical", as in you're funny -delusions of Canuck grandeur I think.
0 Votes
+ -
I dunno if you've noticed . . .
CobraA1 18th Oct 2009
I dunno if you've noticed . . . but Canada is about as big as the USA, maybe bigger. With the exception of Hudson Bay taking up a big chunk of it, there's plenty of land in Canada. It won't get any more crowded than the USA is already.

And FYI, the equator goes through Brazil, not the southern USA, and not even Mexico.

And IMHO there's not going to be mass migrations because of a couple of degrees. You're acting as if it's gonna jump 50 degrees or so, sheesh.
0 Votes
+ -
"The garden of england" would be desert. Do i need to say more.

The CounterEthics guy is too funny, just above here, he said that evolution didn't happen, and here:

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-13603-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=70487&messageID=1354053

he says that earth is 6000 years old.... amazing!
0 Votes
+ -
Stevey sounds like a child, doesn't he.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
"5 degrees would make cold london into the sahara"

Wait, we're talking the USA, now we go to London?

So much for consistency.

But I'll go with that.

First: Last I checked, we're not talking about five degrees.

Second: Here are reasons why the UK is unlikely to become a desert, even with a temperature change:

-The UK is a first world country, and most of its residents have have air conditioning. The UK is far more technologically advanced than African countries such as Algeria.

-The Sahara is largely landlocked, while the UK is surrounded by ocean.

-The Sahara is literally sucked dry by northeasterly trade winds, which pulls moisture away from the region to the Atlantic. This is the single biggest reason for its dryness.

-The UK gets westerlies, which pours water into that region from the Atlantic.

Even with a temperature change, I seriously doubt the climate of the UK will resemble the Sahara.

In fact, take a good look at a globe sometime - the Sahara is not even on the equator! The equatorial African nations actually enjoy more rainfall than the Sahara, thanks to southeasterly trade winds and Africa's shape near the equator.

"The CounterEthics guy is too funny...."

I generally try to avoid debates about origins these days. We live in a free country, we're allowed to believe what we like.

Debates about origins aren't gonna change those trade winds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2omzggs0A&feature=related

Also, Note, when the global temperature was only 5 degrees colder, there was a 2km thick glacier on top of London.

0 Votes
+ -
@Stevey
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
Stevey, when you come up with links, make sure they're relevan to the point you're making. Now you just look silly.
0 Votes
+ -
Canada is bigger
snberk341 Updated - 19th Oct 2009
Canada is definitely sizeable bigger than US, only
Russia is bigger. Having that amount of land doesn't
equate to liveable area though -even with the
permafrost melting in the southern fringes of the
north. Americans and other people of the world have
no concept of how rugged the landscape can become
just north of the cities.

In the 1950s a passenger plane crashed in the
mountains north of Vancouver. At the time a massive
search was conducted, and it was never found. Close
to 50 years later it was finally found.... by a day hiker
who had taken a city bus to the trail head, went hiking
and wandered off the trail. He called in his find on his
cell phone. It was that close to the city, but the terrain
is that rugged.

But, you are right on with the rest of your post...

0 Votes
+ -
^^^ Spam post. Ignore. ^^^
Hallowed are the Ori 17th Oct 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
The fact is that our planet
Lerianis10 18th Oct 2009
Is not in any danger in any way, shape or form. It's time
to start smacking down the enviroloonies at every turn,
and telling them "PROVE IT!".... which, of course, make
them stomp and whine like a two year old who doesn't get
their favorite candy.
0 Votes
+ -
the other 5% believe the earth is flat, and that evolution didn't happen.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 18th Oct 2009
The Bible said that the world is *round*, about 3,000 years before it was 'scientifically' proven to be so. What happened was that in the dark ages, the catholic church got it all wrong (as they do in some other things). Think about it - how could Bible know?

As for evolutiuon: There are 6 kinds of evolution theories, and only 1 of them has evidence for it (and is not disputed by creationists btw):
1. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen
2. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter
3. Stellar and planetary evolution - the origin of stars and planets
4. Organic evolution - origin of life from inanimate matter
5. Macro-evolution - origin of major kinds
6. Micro-evolution - variations within kinds.

Micro-evolution happens. The rest is wrong and unproven. Yep, it's very painful for evolutionists - *still* looking for evidence... Poor chaps.

Evolution is a religion. You need to believe it.
0 Votes
+ -
Made up statistics . . .
CobraA1 18th Oct 2009
"the other 5% believe the earth is flat"

I'd love to know the source of that statistic.
...the other 99.999999% agree with you happy
0 Votes
+ -
but hey, don't let _anything_ stand in the way of humour.
0 Votes
+ -
Nice!
ITLeader 20th Oct 2009
That's pretty funny stuff. You know all attempts to predict the day will fail right?

However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows. (NLT, Matthew 24:36)

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix